| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)oryx(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Nearing final release? |
| Date: | 2004-10-18 19:40:36 |
| Message-ID: | 28883.1098128436@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches |
Abhijit Menon-Sen <ams(at)oryx(dot)com> writes:
> At 2004-10-16 18:41:05 -0400, tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us wrote:
>> I think the cleanest solution is probably to add a state flag indicating
>> whether ParseComplete should generate a PGresult or not.
> Like the appended (incremental) patch?
Not exactly --- the way you've got this set up, a failed PQprepare will
leave a booby trap for the next operation. The flag has got to be reset
on command send, not on receipt of a success response. I'll find a
better place to do it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Jan Wieck | 2004-10-18 20:36:19 | Re: Getting rid of AtEOXact Buffers (was Re: [Testperf-general] |
| Previous Message | Jan Wieck | 2004-10-18 19:37:43 | Re: First set of OSDL Shared Mem scalability results, some |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2004-10-18 22:03:50 | Re: [HACKERS] Final libpq patch? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2004-10-18 18:34:30 | Re: Final libpq patch? |